NO MORE ANGER PLEASE

THE HUNT IS ON

NADER DEBATE

We begin today with an observation by journalist Jim Fallows from some years back. We will use it as the frame for today’s discourse:

Americans have never been truly fond of their press. Through the last decade, however, their disdain for the media establishment has reached new levels. Americans believe that the news media have become too arrogant, cynical, scandal-minded and destructive. … The most important sign of public unhappiness may be a quiet consumers’ boycott of the press. Year by year, a smaller proportion of Americans goes to the trouble of reading newspapers or watching news broadcasts on TV. This is a loss not only for the media but also for the public as a whole.

News wire … Earthquake in Morocco … Nuclear talks with North Korea resume … Libya admits it paid a cash settlement on Lockerbie to “buy peace,” not say they are sorry … They still say they didn’t do it … Report that Germans told CIA about a 911 hijacker months before he flew a plane into the World Trade Center … Nothing was done …

61 electoral votes are up for grabs today in Western primaries and caucuses today, as President Bush gave us a hint of the political slugfest to come, lashing at at so called flip-flops by the “Senator from Massachusetts.” But the public attacks were mild in light of the whisper-rumor-character assassination campaign being waged by the White House. TIME Magazine’s Joe Klein reveals the snide class baiting that is underway:

FINE WINE

The real energy will be spent proving that Kerry isn’t solid or strong, that he is, in fact, effete and unreliable. His tendency to surround an issue and talk it to death using fancy language will be Exhibit A. (George W. Bush will play at sounding like Clint Eastwood to drive home the contrast.) As for Exhibit B, the Republican National Committee gave a sneak preview last week, emailing to reporters a quote from Teresa Heinz Kerry about her husband: “You know, I say he’s like a good wine. You know, it takes time to mature, and then it gets really good and you can sip it. I think he’s at that stage now.”

“Why, you might ask, would the Republicans distribute something so innocuous? Because it implies the Heinz Kerrys are wine drinkers. They probably eat quiche too. Early in the campaign, Kerry committed the abomination of ordering Swiss cheese instead of Cheez Whiz for his Philly cheesesteak󴨡t’s almost as grievous as asking for a “splash” of coffee, as Bush the Elder once did. (Bush the Younger has been careful to let us know that he favors bologna sandwiches.)

Furthermore, John Kerry speaks fluent French. It is no accident that a White House staffer once said, “He looks French.” The Heinz Kerrys hang out on Nantucket and in Sun Valley, Idaho. They don’t own a ranch or cut scrub with a chainsaw. He often shows up at Davos. He went to a fancy private school in Switzerland. He and Teresa met at a global-warming conference, for God’s sake! He wears pastel Hermès ties󡠰ink one at his Wisconsin victory celebration. And this guy calls himself an American!

ANGER MANAGEMENT PLEASE

President Bush used the carrot and the coin yesterday, He kept his rhetorical cool attacking partisan anger, saying “So far, all we hear is a lot of old bitterness and partisan anger. … Anger is not an agenda for the future of America.” Meanwhile his Secretary of state was offering an overdue sop to world opinion.

CNN reports: “The United States has rolled out a five-year, $15 billion strategy for combating the AIDS/HIV pandemic. The plan is described as the largest commitment ever by a single nation towards combating the crisis.” AIDS came up at an Edwards speech in New York last week, according to Klein. His report:

“At his maiden New York primary speech, at Columbia University last week, Edwards was confronted by AIDS protesters who wanted him to address their issue and by local reporters curious as to why he hadn’t mentioned Iraq. His bland responses—that AIDS was a test of “moral responsibility” and that Iraq was “a very important issue”—disappointed both groups. “He didn’t speak with any detail at all,” said Kim Sue, one of the protesters. “I think I’ll have to vote for Kerry.”

THE HUNT IS ON

I meant to mention this yesterday but the Bush Administration is stepping up its hunt for Osama bin Laden hoping,if they get him, for a bounce like the one that followed the capture or Saddam. The Pakistan army was reportedly trading gunfire with “foreign fighters” this morning. Interestingly, a retired military officer I know who consults for the government says that people on the insider know longer think Osama is in charge and that the network he’s been part of is very decentralized to assure that even if the “head of the snake” in intelligence parlance is chopped off the organization survives. Anyway, this just in:

REPORT: US IS CLOSING IN ON OBL

A British Sunday newspaper is claiming Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of land bordering northwest Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Sunday Express, known for its sometimes colorful scoops, claims the al-Qaeda leader has been “sighted” for the first time since 2001 and is being monitored by satellite.

The paper claims he is in a mountainous area to the north of the Pakistani city of Quetta. The region is said to be peopled with bin Laden supporters and the terrorist leader is estimated to also have 50 of his fanatical bodyguards with him.

The claim is attributed to “a well-placed intelligence source” in Washington, who is quoted as saying: “He (bin Laden) is boxed in.”

Osama is not on the minds of many in the Middle East they way he is in our country. The focus there is on the battle over what Israel calls the “separation barrier” or “security fence” and what Palestinians call the “apartheid wall.” It is an issue getting a lot of coverage because the World Court in the Hague is hearing the issue and will be issuing an advisory opinion.

MEDIA COVERAGE OF THAT BARRIER IN THE WEST BANK

R. Dajani of a Middle East oriented media monitoring service reports on how that wall being erected by Israel is being covered:

A Baltimore Sun opinion sheds light on Israeli PR efforts in the US to justify the building of the separation barrier. A Chicago Tribune opinion by UCSD Professor Gary Fields and a New York Times opinion by Noam Chomsky see the separation barrier as an attempt to take Palestinian land and create the conditions that force Palestinians to leave. An opinion in the Philadelphia Inquirer by a 15-year-old Palestinian student living in the West Bank drives home the impact on ordinary Palestinian of the separation barrier. The BBC (UK) presents a useful guide to the Hague hearings on the separation barrier. In the Guardian (UK), the mayor of the Palestinian West Bank town of Qalqilya comments on the impact of the separation barrier on his town. In a Haaretz (Israel) opinion, Gideon Levy reports on the tribulations facing ordinary Palestinians at Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank. In a Daily Star (Lebanon) opinion, Patrick Seale highlights Arab disunity. In a Gulf News (UAE) opinion, Alon Ben Mier outlines the different Israeli and Palestinian responsibilities regarding the separation barrier and the settlements.

NOAM CHOMSKY ON “POLITICIDE”

And, yes, you read it right: The New York Times published an op-ed page piece by Noam Chomsky whose voice is rarely if ever heard in the newspaper of record. Professor Chomsky has spent years critiquing the Times and so I was surprised to see an op-ed of his appear. How did it happen? I asked a high up Timesman who said it was sent in. And they read it. And thought it should run. Just like that. Amazing. Let’s hope that the author of “Manufacturing Consent” will now be doing some manufacturing of his own now that the New York Times at least, and at last, acknowledged his views on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The subject of many of his books and essays deserve an airing.

Brace yourself for the storm of protest to come with Israel’s supporters dredging up charges of “Blood Libel and worse.” A year or two ago, I met Noam at the New School after he took part in a panel. A supporter of Israel and a strident critic of his was stalking him and, at one point, I had to intervene physically with my body as a kind of separation barrier. If Mel Gibson did a movie about him, it might be called The Passion of the Antichrist, or at least that’s how he’s seen by people who really haven’t read his position but instead label and destroy it. That the Times acknowledges Chomsky is a sign of how desperate the situation in the Middle East (and the debate here about the Middle East) has become. Here’s part of what Chomsky wrote:

A Wall as a Weapon

By NOAM CHOMSKY
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else. Careful scrutiny is always in order. Israel’s so-called security fence, which is the subject of hearings starting today at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is a case in point.

“Few would question Israel’s right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means. It is also clear where such a wall would be built if security were the guiding concern: inside Israel, within the internationally recognized border, the Green Line established after the 1948-49 war. The wall could then be as forbidding as the authorities chose: patrolled by the army on both sides, heavily mined, impenetrable. Such a wall would maximize security, and there would be no international protest or violation of international law.

“This observation is well understood. While Britain supports America’s opposition to the Hague hearings, its foreign minister, Jack Straw, has written that the wall is “unlawful.” Another ministry official, who inspected the “security fence,” said it should be on the Green Line or “indeed on the Israeli side of the line.” A British parliamentary investigative commission also called for the wall to be built on Israeli land, condemning the barrier as part of a “deliberate” Israeli “strategy of bringing the population to heel.”

“What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also - as the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described Israel’s war of “politicide” against the Palestinians - helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination. …

SHARE YOUR VIEWS ON THE BBC

From The Guardian this morning comes word that “Journalists embedded with British forces during the Iraq war will be liable for a medal. If that doesn’t underscore the way the military saw that program, nothing does. … I have been covering the BBC crisis regularly, Now the BBC is too, soliciting opinions on “What is the BBC for?” Here are the other questions:

“Is it too big, too commercial, dumbed down? Is it still a trusted public service broadcaster whose license fee should be preserved?

Big decisions are being made about the future of the BBC as the government reviews its royal charter. The government is asking for the public’s views by the end of March.

With the dust still settling from the Hutton Report, Panorama tackles some of the trickiest questions facing Britain’s oldest broadcaster.

In a special studio event presented by Gavin Esler, with links to audiences around the country, leading figures from inside and outside broadcasting - including acting Director general Mark Byford - present their visions of the future for the BBC.

Is the BBC too obsessed with chasing ratings? Can its journalism be trusted? Is it properly regulated? What is the future of its digital channels? What role should it play in a multi-channel world?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/pn/-/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm
http://bbc.co.uk/panorama

YOUR LETTERS

DEBATING NADER
From Catherine Kenward of Taos, NM:

This is a copy of the email I send to the vote Nader website:

“Dear Ralph, I voted for you last time but I won’t be voting for you again. I read the statement in which you said you felt people were trying to censure you but it seems to me you’ve been censuring yourself.

I was very disappointed not to hear anything from you in the last 4 years. What did you have to say when GW stole the election, when we attacked Afghanistan, when they passed the Patriot Act or during the debate leading up to the war in Iraq? Nothing that I could find. Why were you so silent when you could have taken a stand and influenced the debate? Why didn’t you show some leadership?

You have completely eroded your credibility in my eyes. To come out now and say that you’re going to run is so misguided as to be absolutely stunning. I never regretted voting for y! ou last time but now I’m beginning to wonder. Who’s funding you, the Republicans? There were rumors about that last time which your current actions certainly give credence to. I’m shaking my head in disbelief.

f

Ivana Edwards is peeved for another reason:

I am tired of the stupid knee-jerk criticism of Nader as all “ego.” This represents a basic misunderstanding of Nader and everything he stands for. His run for president this time is just a continuation of his 40 years of single-minded dedication to fundamental change on behalf of the public interest. That kind of dedication is not only about ego. (Everybody needs a healthy ego to function in this world.) Most people just do not get this. It’s beyond them. We should be grateful, very grateful, that we are lucky enough to have Nader to speak up for the people who have no voice in this country, the majority. … We need Nader’s voice. We need broader public debate, broader public dialogue. I for one will probably vote for Nader in NY because I can, it’s a safe state. No danger here that the vote will go to a Republican, never mind Bush!

Paul Ellison writes from San Francisco:

One aspect of Nader’s entry into the Presidential race is that the system is not designed for more than two parties. For their to be any sense of fairness in the “first past the post” system only two candidates can run. The candidate with 51% wins and thus the views of over half the electorate that voted are reflected. Once a third candidate enters the race the number can become skewed. The following scenario can easily occur: Candidate 1: 45%; Candidate 2: 35%; Candidate 3: 20%. Candidate 1 is thus elected by a minority of the popular vote, something that could hardly be termed democracy. Many mayoral elections have run-offs where the race is narrowed down to two. If America want a plurality of candidates, it needs to change the system to allow for this.

Karen Wald asks:

Has anyone ever done a survey to find out how many of the people who voted for Nader the last time around did so because they absolutely could NOT bring themselves to vote for either of the two tickets presented by the Republicans and Democrats? That is, how many would NOT have voted at all if they had not voted for him, as compared to people who would have voted for the Democrat if he hadn’t been running? I think that makes a big difference in calculating the effect of his candidacy. I say that because I know that I would NOT, under any circumstances, have voted for a Gore-Lieberman ticket, so I would have sat out the election.

CATS PAW?
Eric T Olson from Maine writes:

I find I’m quite riled by The Nation, Josh Marshall, Paul Loeb, and other tough-minded liberals likening Nader to a “cat’s paw of the Republican party” (Marshall) and an “Exxon executive” (Loeb). The potential for Nader to hurt the Democrat is low, much lower I would argue than is the potential for Nader to hurt Bush and help the Democrat.

I offer my detailed opinion on this at length in two postings in my blog (2/21 and 2/22) at http://journal.deepblade.net. The liberal anti-Nader rant is hyperbolic and even will be unhelpful to their precious Democratic nominee.

Nader deserves to be on the ballot and should be on the ballot. Shame on liberals who would disparage this most basic American democratic tradition. It is irrelevant if “anybody but Bush” liberals think it’s “not the right time” for a 3rd party. If Nader has a constituency outside the Democratic Party, that is the right of those voters. …

We need Ralph Nader in this race. Already, he has excoriated Bush on national TV in a manner absolutely no Democrat would touch. Running has allowed him to do it. There is a lot more where that came from. Go get ‘em Ralph. In the end I may well vote Democratic, but I won’t do it quietly.

Henry Fernandez speaks out on the issue too:

“Although it has been said in other ways, the Democratic Party’s planners (?) do not seem to account for two simple facts: 1) The Democratic politicians are not as different from Republicans as Nader supporters would require. 2) Most of these supporters would not vote at all, having the limited choice that the Democrats espouse (in effect saying, “Neither of the indentured candidates is acceptable,”).

GLOBAL WARMING
Margot Fraser writes about a study I reported last week. It was the subject of an article in The Nation before it appeared in the Guardian:

Did you happen to come across the report in THE GUARDIAN, maybe Friday the 20th or Saturday the 21st , about the supposedly secret report from the Pentagon to the White House stating unequivocally that global warming and climate changes in the near future were far more of a danger to the US and everybody than terrorism? The piece went on to say that the Bush White House has either ignored or distorted the findings of the scientific community thus downplaying a looming disaster as well as contributing to it through the “environmental policies.” The report was also acknowledged and viewed with increased concern by Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists. It seems Bush does not believe in Global Warming so therefore it does not exist. And what with the oil lobbies and all that, what else could we expect? However, the problem is much more serious than we have been led to believe — depending on our sources of information — and in the very near future we can expect the Hague to be flooded and not long after that, the UK will likely resemble Siberia. Droughts in one place, floods in another, troops on the beaches shooting down waves of desperate starving would-be immigrants.

The only good news is that the population will decrease radically from disease, famine and local nuclear wars. This is what the MIT types are saying: I’m not a flaming anything, nor am I inclined toward hysteria, but I would like to think there is a future beyond the next few decades. How would it be if all use of fossil fuels was stopped at midnight GMT Feb. 24? Never to run again. Who will be the first to turn to turn the key to off? Anybody?

MISPLACED THANK YOU
Michael Horan writes:

THANK YOU for saying this, and for phrasing it as elegantly as you did.

If you discouraged him and disagree with his decision, don’t support or vote for him. But please keep an open mind and have the courtesy to recognize that others would like to have the opportunity for more choices and voices in the electoral process to move this country forward.

I’ll also take this opportunity to thank you for the education you’ve been providing me since I started subscribing to this newsletter. Yours are far and away my most-forwarded n-letters, precisely because you fill what was a truly serious gap. I’ve not written to you before, so here’s my chance to say thanks for one newsletter.

THANKS, but that quote comes from Nader’s campaign manager. I was just reporting it.

Finally, since I began with a quote. I will end with one by a poet and I will bet you didn’t know it. His name is Donald Rumsfeld and his day job is running the Department of Defense, better known still as the Department of War. Hart Seely wrote about Rummy’s poetry in Slate. I missed it when it first appeared but GOOGLE found it for me.

Until now, the secretary’s poetry has found only a small and skeptical audience: the Pentagon press corps. Every day, Rumsfeld regales reporters with his jazzy, impromptu riffs. Few of them seem to appreciate it.

The poems that follow are the exact words of the defense secretary, as taken from the official transcripts on the Defense Department Web site.

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.

Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

You never know what you will learn when you click on to the News Dissector blog, do you? Who knows, you may be reading your own letter tomorrow if you send one in today. Write: dissector@mediachannel.org.